caught at 117 but only after unmarked car tailgated me Options

[stevensuf]

hi all,
i dont know if anyone can help, i was driving on a 3 lane dual carriageway on the outside lane
at between 80-90 (on the speedo 6mph less on gps) and a car had been tailgating me for several miles.
There was no room to pull in and i was getting pissed off at this car sitting up my rear, so floored it a bit
to make some room, as soon as i had passed some cars on the inside i pulled back in and returned to 85mph
the car that had been tailgating me caught up and guess what, blue flashing lights. (unmarked skoda)

the boys in blue then decided they were putting forward a dangerous driving charge and a speeding charge
they had clocked me at 117mph.

my question is, surely when i was speeding between 85/90 they should have pulled me anyways and the only
reason i sped up was because they were tailgating me.

Im assuming they were at it, ie sitting up my ass as they know most people will speed up and i was in a fairly
quick sports car, ie they were trying to goad me to go faster which worked!

i have a couple of question re defence or mittigation.
they never did a verbal nip well nothing as to the phrases i hear, is this essential or just saying we
will forward details to the fiscal is that the same? they never used anything near the exact phrase, though i may get
the nip through the mail time will tell.

secondly surely they should have stopped me when they were first behind me when i was speeding already?
thirdly, surely i can make a complaint about the tailgaiting.

ive been thinking of taking the i was afraid for my safety route, ie i thought it was some mad road rager sitting
up my rear , i had no where to go as the inside lane was full and i was afraid to slow down incase the tailgater
got even worse, i was afraid for my safety knowing if for any reason i had to brake the tailgater would almost
certainly go into my rear, the thinking time at that speed was greater than the gap and the only way i could
ensure my safety was by speeding ahead and creating a gap then moving to the inside lane and slowing once
i had cleared the car.

Any thoughts??

thanks
steven

This post has been edited by stevensuf: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 - 00:15

[Advertisement]

[bama]

the trapped you - but proving it will be hard as there is no good reason for the speeding up (barring being a Sleb and fearing/having kidnap threats type stuff) - and you fell for it....

having said that we have had several posters here that have been nabbed for following the car in front too closely - but even if the video shows that the Driver of the police car will probably claim being a Class 1 driver, trained to do it etc. and the court will very likely believe it. even though it doesn't make him superman or his car disobey the laws of physics.
As you floored it a bit at ninety in a fast car it may well be that you exceeded 100 in which case ban territory.
maybe time for a good motoring solictor who could 1) get any in car video (was there any ?) 2) advocate for a lesser sentence.
As for the caution - their joint memory will probably say that they did caution you by the time it gets to court/summons pack...

[stevensuf]

Yeah im certain of the fact that when asked threy will recall a verbal nip, im thinking of first lodging a complaint to the police officialdom about the driving of the police officer , considering there was no need to tailgate , he was driving dangerously, regardless of super powers, the thinking distance is more than a cars length.

I would hope that a complaint lodged against the driving of the police officers would help my case come court time.

They averaged me at 116 mph , but how they managed that is beyond me as i only breifly put the foot down to clear them
and returned to 85 pretty damn quick.

Im sure there must be some sort of agent provacateur route ie they incited the crime to be made and had no good reason
for not stopping me while i was doing 85 -90 over the previous couple of miles, they drove dangerously close to me knwowing
the other lanes were full and i could not get out of their way by any other means other than accelerating.

[stevensuf]

One other thing i wonder if it would help, i have google the stopping distances for my car and the car the police were driving and my car will stop in almost 9m less than the police car at 80mph so i could argue that unless the police officer was a fortune teller there is no way if i had to brake
hard that he could possibly avoid hitting me in ther rear he would in fact have to start braking before i had even thought of braking

[Zed Victor One]

hi all,
i dont know if anyone can help, i was driving on a 3 lane dual carriageway on the outside lane
at between 80-90 (on the speedo 6mph less on gps) and a car had been tailgating me for several miles.
There was no room to pull in and i was getting pissed off at this car sitting up my rear, so floored it a bit
to make some room, as soon as i had passed some cars on the inside i pulled back in and returned to 85mph
the car that had been tailgating me caught up and guess what, blue flashing lights. (unmarked skoda)

the boys in blue then decided they were putting forward a dangerous driving charge and a speeding charge
they had clocked me at 117mph.

my question is, surely when i was speeding between 85/90 they should have pulled me anyways and the only
reason i sped up was because they were tailgating me.

Im assuming they were at it, ie sitting up my ass as they know most people will speed up and i was in a fairly
quick sports car, ie they were trying to goad me to go faster which worked!

i have a couple of question re defence or mittigation.
they never did a verbal nip well nothing as to the phrases i hear, is this essential or just saying we
will forward details to the fiscal is that the same? they never used anything near the exact phrase, though i may get
the nip through the mail time will tell.

secondly surely they should have stopped me when they were first behind me when i was speeding already?
thirdly, surely i can make a complaint about the tailgaiting.

ive been thinking of taking the i was afraid for my safety route, ie i thought it was some mad road rager sitting
up my rear , i had no where to go as the inside lane was full and i was afraid to slow down incase the tailgater
got even worse, i was afraid for my safety knowing if for any reason i had to brake the tailgater would almost
certainly go into my rear, the thinking time at that speed was greater than the gap and the only way i could
ensure my safety was by speeding ahead and creating a gap then moving to the inside lane and slowing once
i had cleared the car.

Any thoughts??

thanks
steven

I find it difficult to believe that in your own words that in 'several miles' on a 3 lane section of road there was not opportunity to move over and let a car pass, be it an unmarked police car or any other.
You then admit that you were goaded into going faster which suggests a mindset of two wrongs making a right!
It may be that whilst a simple offence of excess speed could have resulted in you being stopped sooner, excess speed on it's own does not consitute dangerous driving. If however you have been reported for dangerous driving this a far more serious offence which would require a far higher burden of proof and consequently not just an isolated few seconds of excess speed. Irrespective of all this the police would have to find an appropriate place to stop you and if there wasn't such a place available then they would need to follow you until there was.
Was the police vehicle equipped with a Provida or similar system and if so were you offered the opportunity to see the recording at the roadside? If it was fitted with a camera system then your solicitor should request a copy of the recording under the disclosure rules.
If there is a recording of this incident it may be beneficial to your case, but you also need to be aware that it may not show things in the same light as you perceived them to happen. If as you say they were tailgating you then this may give credence to a complaint against them but may have little or no effect on the overall outcome of proceedings against you.
As far as your possible defence of personal safety is concerned unless as stated you are a celeb you would be hard pressed to show that your had just cause for your concerns.

This post has been edited by Zed Victor One: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 - 13:26

[bama]

even if there is video and it proves thepolice driver was taking undue risks (from what you describe a shunt in those conditions would have been pretty bad) it will do zero to prove that you are not guilty...

[potkettleblack]

Relative stopping distances of the cars is pretty irrelevant if he's tailgating at 85. Thinking/reaction time would cause a collision. I don't think the highway code figures have been updated since Morris Minor and Hillman Imp. On the other hand, who does an emergency stop with a car tailgating at 85? As Bama says, a tailgating copper doesn't make you innocent, but since they are happy to use civvies to form opinion of excess speed, maybe you can form opinion of whatever charge covers dangerous tailgating, cause some problem for them.
I am not entirely sure why one has to be a Cleb to fear personal safety against road rage. I've driven in Texas...

[jobo]

if you are going to complain

do it now, it looses all credability if you waite for the summons to come before doing so,

if the vid show things as you say they may drop the case out of embaress ment,

if not it will stop them from doing it to some one else, maybe me 9 so get on and do it

[stevensuf]

Thanks, i have already lodged a formal complaint against the officers involved. the video should show it exactly as i said, im not saying im not guily but looking at it as very mitigating cirumstances, the simple fact is if they did not tailgate me so closely then i would not have driven at that speed, ergo they caused it by putting me in danger, they basicaly bullied/coerced me to speed up and while doing so put my life and thier lifes and god knows how many others in danger

[awu98]

how close are we talking about when you say tailgaiting? Like people have said, prooving the guilt of the police in this instance won't necesarily proove your 'innosense'.. But, as far as I knew, and I could well be wrong here, I thought the police had to have sirens on when they contravene any road laws? eg speed, wrong side of the road etc. If they had been following you, let alone tailgaiting for 90mph prior to stopping you at 117mph, surely that goes against this? there may well be exceptions, I'm only going on what I've heard from various sources..

[southpaw82]

There's no legal requirement for lights or sirens when using their exemptions.

[jobo]

Sirens/ Blues

yes there is if they are causing a potential danger to other road users

ie the car immediatly front of them

[southpaw82]

Sirens/ Blues

yes there is if they are causing a potential danger to other road users

ie the car immediatly front of them

Go on then. Show me the law that says they must use them.

[potkettleblack]

Can all these judgement calls be stipulated in law? At some point they have to just be covered by policy or code of practice. Every job has one. Otherwise we would have law on how hard to hit with a truncheon, how clean a hi visibility jacket has to be or all sorts of other minor details. What is the point of lights/sirens if not to alert the public of hazards?

[southpaw82]

Use of warning equipment will be governed by force policy. There is no legal requirement to use warning equipment when taking advantage of any exemption to the traffic laws. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, circumstances may be that it is better not to use the equipment but still take advantage of the exemptions: examples would be a response to a silent alarm at a bank, a burglary in progress or covert surveillance driving. Furthermore, the exemptions apply to any vehicle that is being used for a police/fire/ambulance purpose. There is no requirement for them to be marked or carry emergency equipment. So, any law requiring emergency equipment to be used would restrict the application of the exemptions.

[Zed Victor One]

Can all these judgement calls be stipulated in law? At some point they have to just be covered by policy or code of practice. Every job has one. Otherwise we would have law on how hard to hit with a truncheon, how clean a hi visibility jacket has to be or all sorts of other minor details. What is the point of lights/sirens if not to alert the public of hazards?

Your not warning them of hazards you are warning people of your presence on the road, if there is little to be gained then they are not used. Certainly when you get up to high speeds the wailers are incapable of projecting the sound ahead of the vehicle hence the fitting of flashing head lights and suitably placed strobe lights.

Their use is solely at the discretion of the driver you cannot write a policy catering for every given circumstance on the road.

Policy on batons however is much easier, you hit them as hard as you need to...........

[southpaw82]

Policy on batons however is much easier, you hit them as hard as you need to...........

One good (hard) strike looks a lot better on the CCTV at court than half a dozen bad (weak) strikes

[stevensuf]

yip sad gets, i still maintain on this site more police than people, corrrect me if wrong, at the end of the day , the decent people should avoid them, that is the police not the decent people, whay cant the popile that join the police not let go of thier infant routes and be decent people rather than ass holes, mm ok i was abused at school, i want to get one over others, showing me not to be the abstract ass hole i appear to be, get a grip be a decent human being.

[southpaw82]

thier infant routes

I think your post says more about you than it does about the police. And I'm not a police officer by the way. Since you asked, yes, I will correct you: I know of very few police officers on here. The vast majority are nothing to do with the police.

[Fredd]

Several people have tried to help you in this forum, but apparently anyone who disagrees with you is an ass hole. Only one ass hole has posted in this thread, and that's you chum.

Bye.